Comparing car models to airplane models

[Agent G]

This discussion comes up all the time on the military modelling forums. We call it artists vs rivet counters. While the military modelers, myself included, tend to be a bit anal regarding nuts and bolts, there is a lot of lee way. I am not one of the "rivet counters" by any stretch of the imagination, yet strive for accuracy. I pay for the kit, if that's what I want, and the subject interests me.

It is funny how we take days to paint a tank. Research the time period, match the paint colors to the most infinate degree, mask, spray, touchup, etc. Add the appropriate amount of weathering and call it a masterpiece. I cannot help laughing as after all these elaborate steps in the process, we find the real tank, or airplane, ship etc etc was painted in a hurry by a pizzed off crew member with a 4" brush.

Ask any of the greatest generation what color their airplane was. Most will tell you they cannot remember, as they had way too much more to worry about than the exact shade of red the tail was painted. I asked my father once to describe the color of tanks in North Africa. His reply "filthy".

We as modelers place that burden upon ourselves, consciously or not. There in lies the never ending issue.

In short, I'll build any subject that interests me, any scale, any time, but, preferably on sale.

G

Edited December 26, 2011 by Agent G

[Art Anderson]

Art, you always explain very neatly where compromises have to be made due to engineering constraints and necessities, which are understandable, unavoidable, and I'm sure (as you mention too) are prevalent in areas in non-automotive models, too.

What this doesn't explain though, is the lack of sharp details in things like belt drives, engine ancillaries, dashboards, etc. Or why the window frames are still molded to bodies in the overwhelming majority of new kits, and not to the windows, where they belong. Or why the chrome pieces are still attached to the sprues so a nasty scar is left in them when one detaches them.

In short, all those things that are still rather unsatisfactory in car models kits, but have long been overcome by the diecast guys, aircraft model kit makers, and model railway manufacturers. And I think it's these things this thread is about, not the compromises that need to be made for engineering reasons.

Junkman--

As for why window frames aren't molded to the clear "glass", just how finicky do you want a kit to be? Bear in mind, with most diecasts having separate chrome window framing, if you really look at that, those frame parts are WAY to heavy (large) to appear at all scale like (unless one goes to high-end 1/16 scale). Tool them into the edges of the glass pieces, and the risk becomes having optical distortions showing the framing, regardless of painting. foiling, etc. OK, so make the "glass" scale thickness? Well in order to do that, the clear plastic would necessarily be .005" or thinner (in 1/25 scale, .005" equals 1/4 inch on the real size ruler), and that would mean either vacformed windows, or "you curve it yourself wraparound 50's-60's windshields.

Again, one of the compromises I was alluding to. Some things are best compromised for the success of the average guy who buys and builds model car kits--leave the really SERIOUS stuff to the more advanced builder (Mr Obsessive comes to mind here--I've known Bill for perhaps 15yrs--he certainly qualifies) and Mark Gustavson, who once used microscope slide cover siips (really thin clear GLASS) to make the side windows and vent wings for a model of his restored 1957 Fairlane Club Coupe.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Art, you always explain very neatly where compromises have to be made due to engineering constraints and necessities, which are understandable, unavoidable, and I'm sure (as you mention too) are prevalent in areas in non-automotive models, too.

What this doesn't explain though, is the lack of sharp details in things like belt drives, engine ancillaries, dashboards, etc. Or why the window frames are still molded to bodies in the overwhelming majority of new kits, and not to the windows, where they belong. Or why the chrome pieces are still attached to the sprues so a nasty scar is left in them when one detaches them.

In short, all those things that are still rather unsatisfactory in car models kits, but have long been overcome by the diecast guys, aircraft model kit makers, and model railway manufacturers. And I think it's these things this thread is about, not the compromises that need to be made for engineering reasons.

As for the "nasty" sprue attachment points on chrome parts--that is an engineering compromise, just as are mold parting lines at the ends of those 50's and 60's era bumpers which both wrapped around to the sides of the car, and then were finished off by extra stamping operations, to rounded, semi-bullet shaped ends. There often is NO WAY other than putting the sprue attachment where tool designers put them, IF you want the part to come out of the dies, and still be attached to a sprue, for both plating and packing in your kit. Sorry, but somethings are pretty much out of reach for the engineers who have to make injection molding tools work.

As for fan belts and the like, again--how many parts do you want in a kit, and how much do you expect to pay for such kits? In addition, how fiddly do you want the kit to be?

Meaning no offense here, but there are model car kit builders, and then there are car modelers, if you get my drift--not trying to be insulting, but some things get compromised for cost reasons, and it's costs that drive the price you pay at the cash register, always has been, likely always will be.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Oh, and one other thing: I have never seen a real car with window framing attached to the window--usually, the glass is installed INTO the framing, with the exception being those pre-1961 convertibles and hardtops, where the side glass panes had chrome channel frames secured to the edges of the glass itself.

Art

[Darren B]

I think that its unfair to say that all car builders cheap some of us here have a fixed and or low imcome. and simply cant afford higher costing kits.

I'm with you on that, as a family man with a wife and children, its hard to go out and buy the latest and greatest kit that comes out. Not even considering the cost. But that is for an entirely new thread, but I do agree with you, some may tend to be cheap but we have to provide for others as well and priorities come first, however that said im looking at picking up pop cans along the road as I have fallen in love with that new double decker bus by monogram/revell im told at my lhs to expect to be set back about $170.00 but looking at the detail its worth it. Just may take me a year or so to save up for that.

[Chuck Most]

A lot of kits do have the window surround molded to the clear part- the Revell '41 Chevy and '37 Ford pickups, '41 Willys, and Moebius '53 Hudson come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I like that particular setup- and in the cases of those particular kits, distortion doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

The chrome thing still kind of bugs me- on their latest '32 Fords Revell went the extra mile to have some of the sprue attachment points hidden a bit better on the plated parts, attaching the pieces to an area that, once cleaned up, won't be visible when the part is installed. Mold lines are a necessary evil, but it does seem the capability is there to minimize the effect of sprue attachment points.

[bbowser]

"Meaning no offense here, but there are model car kit builders, and then there are car modelers, if you get my drift--not trying to be insulting, but some things get compromised for cost reasons, and it's costs that drive the price you pay at the cash register, always has been, likely always will be."

I'm a 'kit builder' and I make no apologies. I marvel at the artists I see on here creating detailed replicas, but I still don't have the time or patience (even after all these years!). We get what we pay for in nearly every facet of life, our hobbies/crafts are no different.

Edited December 26, 2011 by bbowser

[Art Anderson]

A lot of kits do have the window surround molded to the clear part- the Revell '41 Chevy and '37 Ford pickups, '41 Willys, and Moebius '53 Hudson come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I like that particular setup- and in the cases of those particular kits, distortion doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

The chrome thing still kind of bugs me- on their latest '32 Fords Revell went the extra mile to have some of the sprue attachment points hidden a bit better on the plated parts, attaching the pieces to an area that, once cleaned up, won't be visible when the part is installed. Mold lines are a necessary evil, but it does seem the capability is there to minimize the effect of sprue attachment points.

Chuck, that is so very true of the very simple shapes that bumpers were UNTIL the postwar years. It is possible, with a Deuce bumper, to put the sprue attachment points right on the ends of the bumpers--but with the highly sculptured bumpers that came into being by say, 1958, and carrying on until the USDOT mandated LOG bumpers of 1974-onward, not easy at all. It's well to remember that the sprue attachment points are among the "ports" that admit molten styrene INTO the caviity of any model car part, bumpers being the most visible place on most model car parts.

Art

[Art Anderson]

A lot of kits do have the window surround molded to the clear part- the Revell '41 Chevy and '37 Ford pickups, '41 Willys, and Moebius '53 Hudson come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I like that particular setup- and in the cases of those particular kits, distortion doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

The chrome thing still kind of bugs me- on their latest '32 Fords Revell went the extra mile to have some of the sprue attachment points hidden a bit better on the plated parts, attaching the pieces to an area that, once cleaned up, won't be visible when the part is installed. Mold lines are a necessary evil, but it does seem the capability is there to minimize the effect of sprue attachment points.

In the case of most cars, from the first closed bodies through the immediate postwar years, windshield framing was very small indeed (unless one considers that part of those fold-out windshields before cowl vents became common). But with the coming of heavy A-pillars and highly stylized chrome trim thereof, it becomes a matter of making things so that the windshield AND the surrounding framing come out even close to looking EXACTLY right.

Trust me, on more than one occasion, I have lobbied for a solution to this problem, as a sort-of "outsider" looking in, but much of what I said here is a compilation of answers I've gotten over the past 40 years or so.

Art

[george 53]

Art, the 90's Cadillacs had no chrome trim around the windshield/backlite

, and the moulding was attached directly to the glass. I did this job for about 10 years. Now, it's called Window Lace Moulding, and it is a rubber/vynil type of trim, but it's the norm now. Some cars still use a chrome trim moulding, but it is installed after the glass is in place.

[Junkman]

Chuck, that is so very true of the very simple shapes that bumpers were UNTIL the postwar years. It is possible, with a Deuce bumper, to put the sprue attachment points right on the ends of the bumpers--but with the highly sculptured bumpers that came into being by say, 1958, and carrying on until the USDOT mandated LOG bumpers of 1974-onward, not easy at all. It's well to remember that the sprue attachment points are among the "ports" that admit molten styrene INTO the caviity of any model car part, bumpers being the most visible place on most model car parts.

Art

How come the diecast guys can do it?

[Junkman]

A lot of kits do have the window surround molded to the clear part- the Revell '41 Chevy and '37 Ford pickups, '41 Willys, and Moebius '53 Hudson come to mind. Maybe it's just me, but I like that particular setup- and in the cases of those particular kits, distortion doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

And many Tamiyas, and the Polar Lights Beetle. It seems to go into that direction finally - after 50 years of car model kits.

[Terry Sumner]

I think it's all driven by cost of tooling. Being a former tool & die maker I have some knowledge of the process. When the higher end airplane maufacturers tool up for say...a bulbous shaped one piece canopy like on an F-15, they have to use a 3 part sliding cavity mold. Because as Art said, some parts just cannot come out of a mold with any undercuts. But Tamiya and Hasegawa and others solve that problem by using a sliding cavity mold. The caveat here though again..is the cost. If car modelers were willing to pay for the quality that the airplane modelers now get they could very well do so. Same goes with those nasty attachment points of the sprue. In the case of clear canopies, there just cannot be any attachment points that would interfere with the smoothness of the "glass". So they have to take the extra care....and cost...of engineering the sprue paths so they don't attach at a bad spot. It all comes down to what you're willing to pay for....

[Harry P.]

I think it's all driven by cost of tooling. Being a former tool & die maker I have some knowledge of the process. When the higher end airplane maufacturers tool up for say...a bulbous shaped one piece canopy like on an F-15, they have to use a 3 part sliding cavity mold. Because as Art said, some parts just cannot come out of a mold with any undercuts. But Tamiya and Hasegawa and others solve that problem by using a sliding cavity mold. The caveat here though again..is the cost. If car modelers were willing to pay for the quality that the airplane modelers now get they could very well do so. Same goes with those nasty attachment points of the sprue. In the case of clear canopies, there just cannot be any attachment points that would interfere with the smoothness of the "glass". So they have to take the extra care....and cost...of engineering the sprue paths so they don't attach at a bad spot. It all comes down to what you're willing to pay for....

Which brings us right back to the point I made about car modelers being "cheap." The fact is, in general, military/armor guys are willing to pay for quality. Car modelers are not. So car modelers get compromised kits with corners cut to save money.

There is no technical reason why a chrome plated bumper has to be attached to the sprue in a visible spot. Like Christian said, the high-end die-cast manufacturers have figured it out. I have a lot of Danbury Mint models, and if you look at the quality of the plated injection-molded plastic parts, you see nothing but perfection. The chrome looks like chrome, it's glass-smooth and flawless. And you never see a sprue attachment point. But better engineering costs $$$, and the bottom line for many car modelers (far more so than military modelers) is price, not quality or accuracy.

[Harry P.]

Here's a Danbury '56 Buick. I have this model, so I can say from firsthand knowledge that the chrome bumpers (and all of the separate chrome trim pieces) are perfect... no sprue attachment points visible anywhere. Danbury can do it... so obviously it can be done. But you won't find a model of this quality for 20 bucks.

[Terry Sumner]

I don't have any diecast models so I have this observation or maybe it's a question...Isn't all the chrome on a diecast actual "CHROME plating?" I mean the parts are metal so aren't they actually chrome plated and not vacuum plated like plastic parts are?

[Chuck Most]

What aboot visible mold seams or flash on the chrome parts? I don't see any in the pic, but I don't have the model right here in front of me to examine.

I have seen both on high-end diecasts from the mid '90's, though I'm sure quality has improved by leaps and bounds since then.

[Harry P.]

I don't have any diecast models so I have this observation or maybe it's a question...Isn't all the chrome on a diecast actual "CHROME plating?" I mean the parts are metal so aren't they actually chrome plated and not vacuum plated like plastic parts are?

I don't know if the plating is the exact same vacuum-plating process a plastic kit uses, but the chrome parts are plastic, not metal.

But whatever the process is, my point is that it can be done. And it is being done. There's no technical reason why a 1/24 scale model kit can't have chrome like that. It's a cost issue, not a technical limitation.

[Harry P.]

What aboot visible mold seams or flash on the chrome parts? I don't see any in the pic, but I don't have the model right here in front of me to examine.

I have seen both on high-end diecasts from the mid '90's, though I'm sure quality has improved by leaps and bounds since then.

Quality has improved tremendously. Panel gaps are incredibly tight, chrome and paint is absolutely flawless, "real" spring-loaded scissor hinges on the hood are the norm, badges and emblems are photoetched. The quality and attention to detail has to be seen up close. It's incredible.

[Aaronw]

I don't have any diecast models so I have this observation or maybe it's a question...Isn't all the chrome on a diecast actual "CHROME plating?" I mean the parts are metal so aren't they actually chrome plated and not vacuum plated like plastic parts are?

Typically only the body, doors, hood, trunk lid etc is metal, the interior, door handles, bumpers, engine and other detail bits are plastic.

[Terry Sumner]

I don't know if the plating is the exact same vacuum-plating process a plastic kit uses, but the chrome parts are plastic, not metal.

But whatever the process is, my point is that it can be done. And it is being done. There's no technical reason why a 1/24 scale model kit can't have chrome like that. It's a cost issue, not a technical limitation.

No kidding? Gee and I always thought all the parts on a diecast were metal! Learn something new every day! LOL

And I agree with you Harry....

[Harry P.]

Here's another example... 1/24 Danbury Packard. I don't see a mold seam line or sprue attachment point anywhere...

If Danbury can do it, so can anyone else.

[Art Anderson]

Here's another example... 1/24 Danbury Packard. I don't see a mold seam line or sprue attachment point anywhere...

If Danbury can do it, so can anyone else.

Harry, an easy answer here: While that grille and bumper are molded in plastic, the part was removed from the sprue, parting lines smoothed down, then the chrome parts used on Danbury (and Franklin!) Mint cars were electroplated with copper, nickel and chromium--just try and strip one with what we normally use to strip vac-plating--no go!.

Of course, that Packard cost what, $129.00 plus S&H?

Art

[38 Crush]

Good show Art!!

[Harry P.]

Harry, an easy answer here: While that grille and bumper are molded in plastic, the part was removed from the sprue, parting lines smoothed down, then the chrome parts used on Danbury (and Franklin!) Mint cars were electroplated with copper, nickel and chromium--just try and strip one with what we normally use to strip vac-plating--no go!.

Of course, that Packard cost what, $129.00 plus S&H?

Art

Are you sure? They take every part to be plated off the trees, sand them all smooth, and then plate them? How? How are they plated as loose parts? Or do they get reattached to some sort of holder?

Are you sure they do it that way? If so, that explains how they get the parts so perfect, but that seems very labor-intensive. But then again, at the prices these models go for, I can see them doing that.